Tide Turning Against Obama?

[Sinatra]

More and more in the media - even those outlets that historically have supported Democrat politicians, are questioning Obama's ability to lead, and the inherent insanity of his stimulus bill.

Will this questioning be stomped out, or gain momentum?


Pork & Pet Projects, Declan McCullagh Ladles Out The Lard In The Stimulus Package - CBS News

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Is There any Vision Behind the Pragmatism?

800 Billion Reasons To Be Worried: The Senate stimulus bill should only stimulate taxpayer anger - Reason Magazine

Peter Ferrara Says Barack Obama's Economic Policy, Guided By Liberal Ideology, Is Impeding Recovery - WSJ.com

Kausfiles : The Money Liberal Conspiracy At Work

 

[Jon]

I've been enjoying Obama's quick fall from the pedestal. It won't be long before he hits ground zero.

 

[Xenophon]

Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.

 

[doeton]

Blahahaha.



more please...

 

[Munin]

Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.

You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).

 

[Xenophon]

Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.

You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).

That is not 'stimulus' it's all about spending on pet causes.

Leadership would be cutting spending and getting the budget under control, not more crazy stuff.

 

[auditor0007]

Obama told us we were going to spend a lot on infrastructure. I didn't have a problem with that. The rest of it however, is spending we don't need. On top of everything, the entire bill is very haphazard. Throw some money here, throw some there, throw some up there and some more down there. Then get on knees and pray. Where is the strategy? What are they trying to accomplish? Do they have any clue, or is this just like putting as much money as we can on the longshot horse, hoping to strike gold?

 

[Sinatra]

Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.

You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).

Dude, if Obama had to do much pushing when his own party dominates both the House and the Senate, that is a sign of a weakness.

C'mon now - you really want to go on record here in full support of this stimulus bill?

If so, then you need say no more...

 

[Munin]

Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.

You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).

That is not 'stimulus' it's all about spending on pet causes.

Leadership would be cutting spending and getting the budget under control, not more crazy stuff.

No that would be failed leadership in this situation (let the economy go to hell and take a seat for the ride DOWN), if it was not a huge economic crisis right now then I would agree with you because of the debt we have. But an economic crisis will cause the debt to go higher anyway if nothing is done about it and it will also permanently damage the source of income (the economy), if you let your economy seriously injured then it will take you years more to recover. In those years you will be unable to pay of debt, so it is better to try to reverse the negative spiral in the economy or at least stabilize it. It will cost money, but the money will eventually flow back (don't forget that spend money also flows back to the government: taxes).

It is an investment: invest now and the recovery will be earlier, which means more and a stable income for the government earlier. This will probably spare you money (on the long run), because you are securing your income for the next years.

The devastation done by an economic crash would mean that the economy would not give the government, workers & businesses enough income for at least some years. This will lead to more debt, probably even much more debt than what we have spend now to INVEST in the economy.


The problem is that a lot of people tend to simplify things too much, they think that the government & economy is the same as a business and that it now seems that the business (= only the government) is going bankrupt. But this is not comparable at all because a business only needs to worry about one side (supply), while this is a demand and supply problem (economy) where you need to secure both sides. And consumers are the ones who make the businesses make money, if they don't have a job (or have a future in which they might lose one) then the businesses don't have one either. The government is the one who has to at least change the perception and give a big number of these people work so they can then again give other people jobs by government spending (a positive snowball effect).

 

[Sinatra]

The campaign is over and the training wheels are off, and this President don't yet know how to ride the bike...

 

[Munin]

Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.

You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).

Dude, if Obama had to do much pushing when his own party dominates both the House and the Senate, that is a sign of a weakness.

C'mon now - you really want to go on record here in full support of this stimulus bill?

If so, then you need say no more...

Remember Clinton? He had a majority too, but he didn't have united democrats. His first weeks were not comparable at all with Obamas first weeks.


No I support it because nobody has another good alternative, republicans don't have new ideas (tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts: already 44% of the bailout contains tax cuts so don't give me that crap when it is already in it) or some of them even suggest to do nothing (this isn't nature you know, where everything will be all right eventually: the economy is controlled by humans).

I think the guy did al right, he did better than most but that doesn't mean it is perfect. Nothing is perfect, spending is in it because it needs to be: that is the point because spending stimulates the economy and the economy brings income for the government. A bad economy does not bring income for a government and will enlarge the deficit, so first you need to fix your source of income and then you need to care about not going bankrupt as a government because you will go bankrupt anyway if you have no income.

 

[pete]

Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.

You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).

Peter Schiff Stimulus Bill Will Lead to "Unmitigated Disaster": Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

A good thing!!??

 

[jillian]

Dude, if Obama had to do much pushing when his own party dominates both the House and the Senate, that is a sign of a weakness.

C'mon now - you really want to go on record here in full support of this stimulus bill?

If so, then you need say no more...

let me try to explain....

60 Senate Seats!!!

Get it now? Cool.... and I think Obama really had hoped that congress cared enough about this country to act in a bi-partisan fashion.

FWIW, He's accomplished more in two weeks than baby bush did in eight years..... unless of course, you count an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq, losing a city and helping to bankrupt us as accomplishments.

you are so in denial.

Stimulus Support Edges Higher, Now 59% NEW February 11, 2009
Public support for an $800 billion economic stimulus package has increased to 59% in a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Tuesday night, up from 52% in Gallup polling a week ago, as well as in late January.

Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management

 

[jillian]

The campaign is over and the training wheels are off, and this President don't yet know how to ride the bike...

*yawn*

wingnuts are so boring.

 

[Sinatra]

Oh Boy - Obama is losing traction among a cross-section of Americans...

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Site.

 

[Xenophon]

FWIW, He's accomplished more in two weeks than baby bush did in eight years.....

You sure you want to use Dubya as a yard stick jill?

 

[Munin]

Winning was easy, leading is the tough part.

So far obama has shown nothing outside of the fact he can't answer a question without trying to make a speech.

You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).

Peter Schiff Stimulus Bill Will Lead to "Unmitigated Disaster": Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

A good thing!!??

Yeah a good thing, nobody will get extra taxes right now and almost everyone will get tax cuts + more job security. 95 % of the people are getting tax cuts, remember? This investment will be paid back with taxes after the recovery (probably even possible with the same tax levels).

Normally this can not do anything "wrong", it can only fail and then the effects will be less worse then if we did nothing ( but we will have lost money of course). It can't worsen the economy, because the government is giving people/companies work (what they don't have at the moment: demand) by spending and because the private sector doesn't invest the governments actions don't conflict with the actions of the private sector.

If I simplify the economy very much then it comes down to this:

Demand (spending consumers & investments companies) = going down very fast

Supply (companies) = following the demand -> going down very fast (stocks & Jobs)



So what happens with this stimulus (this is an example, I don't have actual numbers so I won't be able to calculate but I suspect the proportions are similar to this example):

+ Demand (spending/investments Government) - Demand (consumers & companies) = "?"

Supply (companies) = following "?"


The possibilities are (government actions seen over a timeframe of 1 to 2 years):
"?" (1) = going down fast (less fast, recovery between 2 and 5 years) Failure
"?" (2) = going down slowly (stabilizing : visibly slowing down and recovering after possibly between 1 and 3 years) Success

It is a risk, but it would be worse if we did nothing because then the risk would be even higher.

Option (3) without the bailout = possibly up to 10 years (depression) because of destruction of mayor companies, banks, ...


Speculation: Biden Himself got probably such a calculation (but then much more complicated of course) from the economic experts of the Obama government in which the outcome was 70 % for option "?" (2) Succes and 30 % for option "?" (1) Failure. That could be the reason why he said it publicly.

 

[Sinatra]

You re forgetting the bailouts, stimulus packages he pushed through congress. All in his first 3 weeks in office (which is quite an accomplishment even if you don't agree with him). IMO I think it is the best option considering the alternative from the other party, that has already proved that it doesn't work (even though some here on the forum might not recognize it because they seem to be in denial about that).

Peter Schiff Stimulus Bill Will Lead to "Unmitigated Disaster": Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

A good thing!!??

Yeah a good thing, nobody will get extra taxes right now and almost everyone will get tax cuts + more job security. 95 % of the people are getting tax cuts, remember? This investment will be paid back with taxes after the recovery (probably even possible with the same tax levels).

Normally this can not do anything "wrong", it can only fail and then the effects will be less worse then if we did nothing ( but we will have lost money of course). It can't worsen the economy, because the government is giving people/companies work (what they don't have at the moment: demand) by spending and because the private sector doesn't invest the governments actions don't conflict with the actions of the private sector.

If I simplify the economy very much then it comes down to this:

Demand (spending consumers & investments companies) = going down very fast

Supply (companies) = following the demand -> going down very fast (stocks & Jobs)



So what happens with this stimulus (this is an example, I don't have actual numbers so I won't be able to calculate but I suspect the proportions are similar to this example):

+ Demand (spending/investments Government) - Demand (consumers & companies) = "?"

Supply (companies) = following "?"


The possibilities are (government actions seen over a timeframe of 1 to 2 years):
"?" (1) = going down fast (less fast, recovery between 2 and 5 years) Failure
"?" (2) = going down slowly (stabilizing : visibly slowing down and recovering after possibly between 1 and 3 years) Success

It is a risk, but it would be worse if we did nothing because then the risk would be even higher.

Option (3) without the bailout = possibly up to 10 years (depression) because of destruction of mayor companies, banks, ...


Speculation: Biden Himself got probably such a calculation (but then much more complicated of course) from the economic experts of the Obama government in which the outcome was 70 % for option "?" (2) Succes and 30 % for option "?" (1) Failure. That could be the reason why he said it publicly.

 

[elvis]

The campaign is over and the training wheels are off, and this President don't yet know how to ride the bike...

That's an insult to marijuana smokers.

 

[Sinatra]

The campaign is over and the training wheels are off, and this President don't yet know how to ride the bike...

That's an insult to marijuana smokers.

Yeah, but c'mon - that sh-t is funny!!!!!